I think the main hold up is that I had committed to doing the JDK8 changes we discussed to get a 1.10, and I haven't had time to finish following through (too focused on 2.1 development and other tasks). I had thought there was interest in a 1.10, but for me, I'd be just as happy aborting that plan and sticking with maintaining the 1.9 line. Then, neither I nor anybody else has to bother doing any JDK8 changes or dealing with the modernizer plugin. I'm reluctant to simply ignore the plugin, since it does highlight quality issues that we don't want to become worsened over time if we simply ignore it. I'd much prefer to abort the 1.10 plan and stick to supporting 1.9 as the LTS release, and doing a 1.9.4. I don't want to do both because I don't want to support both.
If we drop the 1.10 plans, I think we could do a 1.9.4 release pretty quickly (I could prepare a test release candidate pretty much right away to star the ball rolling, and an RC1 within a week). But, I don't want to go against what the community agreed to, by vote, without another vote (which I don't want to champion). On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:15 AM Adam Lerman <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree with Mike that one or the other should happen. If the hold up is > the modernizer plugin, and we know those issues are addressed in 2.0+, > maybe we consider ignoring those issues in the 1.10 line. > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:57 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: > > > If the demand is still there for a 1.10, I am willing to help out. But in > > the meantime, we could still release a 1.9.4, regardless of whether we have > > a 1.10 or not. The last bug fix for 1.9 was in April and there have been > > some fixes and improvements that users are waiting on. > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:24 PM Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks Christopher. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:48 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > It was pointed out to me that some of the problems I had using the > > > > modernizer-maven-plugin could be alleviated by adding granular > > > > exceptions in the modernizer config. I'll see if I can make that > > > > happen. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 7:14 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So, one of the problems I've run into migrating the 1.x code to JDK8 > > > > > is that we still have Mock in the API. That was removed in 2.x. > > > > > However, in 1.9, MockConfiguration extends a non-public API, > > > > > AccumuloConfiguration, which uses non-public Guava types for > > > > > Predicates. Code-modernization/quality checks performed by the > > > > > modernizer-maven-plugin catch the use of Guava's Predicate. I'm still > > > > > looking at this, to see if I can work around it without breaking > > > > > anything, but it's a bit frustrating, especially since the right fix > > > > > (removal of Mock) was already done in 2.x. > > > > > > > > > > I'll revisit next week after a long weekend. In the meantime, if > > > > > anybody is having second thoughts about a 1.10 release, or opinions > > > > > about what to do, feel free to express them here. One option is to > > > > > simply disable the modernizer-maven-plugin and ignore those checks... > > > > > but I don't really like the idea of disabling one of our tools that > > > > > does quality checks (even if these are very minor quality items). > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > As agreed in the recent [VOTE] thread, we will be releasing a > > 1.10.0 > > > > > > that bumps the minimum runtime Java version to 8. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am beginning to work on getting the branch (currently still named > > > > > > 1.9) ready for release in accordance with this plan. As such, I > > will > > > > > > be preparing a pull request that bumps the Java version and > > resolves > > > > > > any errors generated by our plugins which do quality checks > > > > > > (specifically modernizer, but also some compiler warnings). > > > > > > > > > > > > However, there are still a few other outstanding issues that were > > > > > > previously labeled for 1.9, which have not yet been resolved. At > > > least > > > > > > one of these was labeled a "blocker". These are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues?q=is%3Aopen+project%3Aapache%2Faccumulo%2F8 > > > > > > > > > > > > If anybody is able to work on these, it will be very helpful in > > > > > > getting the 1.10.0 ready for a release vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher > > > > > > > > >
